1991. but, it remains open and stayed that we even through the tough times of the civil war. >> who owns it and who runs it? >> it is still run by a very impressive faculty of professors and administrators who were both the president is a direct descendant of daniel bliss. he was a -- by training. the in the department of chicago before he took of the strong. stomaches it coincidental that he is the direct descendant or is that per purpose. he's a capable scholar and administrator but he has a personal passion for the school because of his family connections. >> again, who owns the american
university or who runs it is it associated with the religion or another school? >> non-secular and nonsectarian. what does it cost to go? >> i have no idea. i don't know the answer to that question either but i do know over time it began to open the story's not just the offspring of the middle east but regarded none of religion. the class's and religions and that's appeal. it sets its merit. >> how is it viewed in the middle east when i think those were two separate questions. that would provide suspicion on the part of the middle east when the school opened in the late 1860's who didn't have deep
roots in the region, but rather quickly it became apparent to the middle easterners who were not just orthodox christians, but muslims and jews because this was the best place to get the best possible education and at the generation by 1900 had become what it remains to this day which is part of the middle east and what's magnificent about that is it is an all-inclusive institution founded by serving the interest of the people of the middle east regarding of background. and this is an example of the united states giving to the region and not taking away from it. >> do you see it as being a part of american diplomacy to the middle east? >> only ander equine because leadership of that school has maintained its independence for the united states government, which i think is appropriate,
and practical. but, it serves the american interest in the sense that it gives middle easterners and with a background that house the humanitarian presence in the middle east. it's not always been about access, a close relationship with israel or deploying the military force for the purpose of the national security and americans spend their for injured 50 years given to the region and much more practical and beneficial ways for the people in the region and not just for us. that's why in the book i wanted them to inouye and then i wanted the american people to know that story. >> who was michael and what happened to him? >> a professor at the science of ucla who happened to leave before it arrived to work on my ph.d.. he had gone up in beirut and his family was on the faculty.
though he had made a distinguished career in the united states she went home in the early 80's to lead the school during the period of particularly difficult times when it was structured to to the civil war and the israeli encouragement in 1982, sitting with hammes the school was under assault, there wasn't a lot of personal danger, but he believed that going back and running the school and providing an example of leadership has taught the crisis, was the best to do for the institution that he loved me and he gave us by january of 1984. >> by who and how? >> of the fanatical wing of hezbollah. the islamic jihad but comprised the lebanese with shia who had been underprivileged excluded from the politics and economics of the country and our
ideological affinity, and he had been radicalized by the israeli persian and south lebanon in the early 1980's. was a very toxic mix that led them to take the steps in the assassination. >> why was he targeted? >> because he was an american and very visible presence in the greatest university in the middle east. there was no more high-profile example in that region than the presidency. >> was the american university put in beirut on purpose that in the 1850's was the root like? >> the route was and still is a very multicultural cosmopolitan international city where east
meets west then and now muslims do some christians all mixed into a significant degree and the american missionary presence in the middle east was particularly significant in beirut and became the sort of launching pad for creating what became the greatest university in the region because of this connection. >> could that university have been put in another city and thrive? >> perhaps the presence was no greater anywhere else unless in addition to being ambitious and visionary and practical was american pity if he wanted to create a school that wasn't controlled by a national these or other interests. he wanted to create a school that represented the american model with education, that lived american values which and the
people in the middle east and awareness that would benefit their lives here in tangible ways and he succeeded. >> why is it important to tell the story in your view? >> because i think most middle easterners and americans for that matter are unaware of this longer, deeper humanitarian dimension of the involvement in the middle east. when we think about the middle east it usually centers on israel and the military security and the middle easterners feel likewise. they don't think about what are the longer routes. it has nothing to do with oil or israel or the deployment to protect our interests. >> brian vandemark his most recent book americans be within two families, for generationsz33 and the story of america'z3s influence in the middle east.
this is book tv on c-span2. >> tell us what you think about our programming this weekend. you can tweet, comment on our face the call or send an e-mail. book tv, nonfiction books every weekend on c-span2. >> tonight i'm going to discuss abraham lincoln's role 1816 to 1861. i'm going to talk about how abraham lincoln rejected any meaningful compromise. following his election as president november of 1860, the country was gripped by a crisis because many feared lincoln and his republican party. the republican party was a number party and proudly so. they didn't have a significant
southern connection. lincoln was elected without a single vote from any of the 15 states and only four of the state's, missouri, kentucky and the delaware did he get any popular routes and nearly a handful to read for the first time in the nation's history a party without any notable component would be taking over the executive branch of the government. but there was no more. the republican party was ousted during his brief existence it was cited in the mid to 1850's and its rhetoric had insulted us all and the institution as racial slavery than the determination that the republicans' determination morph into a unit that could win a national election without any southern support the republicans repeatedly condemned the south as on progressive, undemocratic,
and american. with of this party on the threshold of the presidency, seven sectional radicals to the to to the platforms and ms. cooper columns to proclaim the crisis of the south was at hand. now this was not the first time sectional crisis gripped the country, however. there had been several sharp disputes prior to 1860. each of these come in each of the major ones had been settled by compromise. yes i will point specifically to the critical ones.
first, the constitutional convention of 1787 in philadelphia, then the crisis of 1820 which had to do with the misery state and the louisiana purchase which of course as you know is much more than the state of louisiana. it covered almost all of the territory from. so it protect us. it was settled by the compromise to read 1832 to 33 the nullification between the state of south carolina federal government was also sold by compromise. and finally, the late 1840's battling over the future of slavery formed in the mexican war was settled by the compromise of 1850. then you look at these examples precedent and tradition placed for notice the settlement to take place in 1861 but did not
slavery in the 15 states where it existed. almost all americans in 1860, republicans included, believes where it existed. rather, the critical question was slavery in the national territories, and the territories geographically these territories were comprised in the rocky mountains and then west of the rocky mountains to california. it didn't include california because california, as you know, is already a state. it had to do with the future of
slavery and the future of southern power in the nation. now they demand that what they saw to take their property including slave property. in the famous and infamous dr. scott decision the united states supreme court affirmed the stuff and constitutional review. nobody, the supreme court. republicans would allow no more slaves in any territory. abraham lincoln was elected in november. members of congress put forth a various compromise proposals.
a critical portion of all in some duraid dealt with the divisions of the territories. most often there was a proposal to not extend. this would be on with the louisiana purchase all the way to the border of california. i'm going to get to my main topic life lincoln rejected all. i am going to talk about three different men tonight. one of them, all of you know his income abraham lincoln and here's what he was and who he did. the other two. the great kentucky statesman and william henry